ESPN's rankings (and criteria) are certainly subjective, but is there something there? Is the Leafs organization really the worst organization in all of the major sports teams? (Finishing 122nd out of 122 teams ranked.)

Interestingly, ESPN has ranked the Leafs as the worst franchise in the NHL for five consecutive years. Is this an anti-Toronto bias, or perhaps (as the article suggests), does ESPN not really know enough about hockey to make these assessments or rankings?

ESPN ranks franchises in eight different categories, including "best bang for the buck," fan relations, quality of ownership, players (efforts on the field, likeability off the field), coaching and title track.

One area which is not part of ESPN's criteria (obviously) is franchise profitability. The Leafs are one of the most profitable teams in the NHL, so from that standpoint they are a successful franchise, at least from a business perspective!

I think if you want to call Toronto the worst franchise, it's wildly incorrect - how can you call the franchise with the most fans in the league, and the highest revenues, the worst?

But if you want to talk about MANAGEMENT, or some other kind of barometer by which to measure teams . . . go ahead, rank Toronto at the bottom, I won't argue with you.

I just think that if you use the word franchise, you cannot call any of the franchises that have huge popular fanbases, generating an enormous amount of revenue, "terrible". If the brand name is that strong and powerful to survive extremely poor management for an extended period of time . . . wouldn't that make it a really good franchise? Just sayin'.

Although I strongly disagree with the survey on how these teams are measure, I also disagee with the assertation that the fanbase has anything to do with the quality of the franchise.

Proof??

In my opinion, If you uprooted the Phoenix Coyotes and Toronto Maple Leafs and 'switched' them completed. Management, players, etc, the Coyotes would be the most profitable team in the NHL and the Leafs would become the least.

Toronto's profitability is a result of their environment and nothing else.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 09/18/2012 : 10:00:20

I agree– these rankings (and criteria used to make the rankings) are quite flawed.

Despite the flaws, I found the subject matter interesting, as did a number of media sources, and fans alike.

I agree with Beans as it relates to the Leafs franchise. The Leafs have a huge market to draw fans (and a protected market too), and this is a big reason for their financial success.

Nevertheless, many business have beneficial environments, and whether it is through luck or shrewd planning (building a business in a great environment, protecting your borders, and getting the most revenues out of your customers, etc.), you have the give the Leafs credit for being a successful business. On the ice is a different matter though, for which should be a major part of the criteria used in assessing the success of a sports franchise. (Winning the cup should be number one.)

Once again, ESPN's rankings are quite flawed. There are so many examples, but the best example is them rating the Phoenix Coyotes as the best franchise in the NHL! Really – a franchise on the brink of folding or moving is the best franchise in the NHL? The franchise which I believe lost the most money of all NHL teams this past season. Sure – they had a decent season on the ice, but what about the Kings or Devils?

Once again, I found the rankings interesting (even with the obvious flaws), but I suppose fans and media would be paying less attention to ESPN's silly rankings if a hockey season was underway. But with the lock-out in place (and no decent signs that the season will start on time), what else is there to talk about?

Sorry, but I can't get excited about the new rookie prospects, or which team is going to be the most improved, etc. when things are in limbo. Right now, there is no NHL season until the two sides come together and agree on a new CBA, and right now, they seem quite far apart, and resolute in their positions.

Maybe ESPN should rank the top professional sports or who's the best league commissioner, but that's another subject matter!

Guest7752 ( )

Posted - 09/18/2012 : 13:03:42

quote:Originally posted by slozo

It's just an article.

I think if you want to call Toronto the worst franchise, it's wildly incorrect - how can you call the franchise with the most fans in the league, and the highest revenues, the worst?

But if you want to talk about MANAGEMENT, or some other kind of barometer by which to measure teams . . . go ahead, rank Toronto at the bottom, I won't argue with you.

I just think that if you use the word franchise, you cannot call any of the franchises that have huge popular fanbases, generating an enormous amount of revenue, "terrible". If the brand name is that strong and powerful to survive extremely poor management for an extended period of time . . . wouldn't that make it a really good franchise? Just sayin'.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Agree that it's just an article.But, if the Leafs have the most fans in the league, highest revenues, etc... should they not be a "top" franchise??Leafs have, in their favor, every possible support for a franchise to be successful. On that account alone, compare them if you dare to the Yankees. Huge Fan base, huge dollars...What's the difference between the two though?Yankees WIN. Leafs get worse every year, and haven't won ANYTHING in too many years.So, yes, looking at the rich components the Leafs have that would or should make a franchise successful - the Leafs fail miserably as a franchise.And you cannot point at management and say they are the worst - so that's the reason for worst franchise.With the fan base as it is, and the money coming in - good management can be found/hired.So, yes - Leafs are a horrible franchise because if you factor in everything they have to make them a terrific franchise - they are failing and have been failing horribly as a franchise.

I think if you want to call Toronto the worst franchise, it's wildly incorrect - how can you call the franchise with the most fans in the league, and the highest revenues, the worst?

But if you want to talk about MANAGEMENT, or some other kind of barometer by which to measure teams . . . go ahead, rank Toronto at the bottom, I won't argue with you.

I just think that if you use the word franchise, you cannot call any of the franchises that have huge popular fanbases, generating an enormous amount of revenue, "terrible". If the brand name is that strong and powerful to survive extremely poor management for an extended period of time . . . wouldn't that make it a really good franchise? Just sayin'.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Agree that it's just an article.But, if the Leafs have the most fans in the league, highest revenues, etc... should they not be a "top" franchise??Leafs have, in their favor, every possible support for a franchise to be successful. On that account alone, compare them if you dare to the Yankees. Huge Fan base, huge dollars...What's the difference between the two though?Yankees WIN. Leafs get worse every year, and haven't won ANYTHING in too many years.So, yes, looking at the rich components the Leafs have that would or should make a franchise successful - the Leafs fail miserably as a franchise.And you cannot point at management and say they are the worst - so that's the reason for worst franchise.With the fan base as it is, and the money coming in - good management can be found/hired.So, yes - Leafs are a horrible franchise because if you factor in everything they have to make them a terrific franchise - they are failing and have been failing horribly as a franchise.

The difference is, the Yankes in the last decade and a half win - before that, they did a lot of losing.

Teams go through cycles . . . and after the Ballard years ended, the Leafs became competetive again, and were a decent contender for a short span of time.

You all only look at the Leafs as a failure, piling on us as it were, because we happen to be at the end of a 7 year long (ok, 8 years) non-playoff period, despite the appearance that management has tried their very best to improve the team and build a future contender.

The same fanbase for Toronto existed in 2004, the year before the lockout. That fanbase, same as now, supported the Leafs rabidly, bleeding blue and white, buying merchandise, filling the stands every single night, making it the toughest ticket in town to get by far.

Difference was, in 2004, we had just been ousted in the second round of the playoffs, after a run of 6 straight years of playoffs, and 10 out of the last 12 years being a very competetive playoff team. 4 Conference Finals appearances, two 2nd round playoff appearances, and 4 where we were ousted in the first round.

All the Leafs fans, and even I daresay the mangement, were not so radically different than today. Hardly at all, I'd say. No, the difference was, the team had a HOFer in Sundin, and had a string of great goalies.

No, I dont think the Leafs are the worst franchise in pro sports. I dont even believe the Leafs are the worst franchise in the NHL. I think that distinction in the NHL belongs to the Coyotes. Previous owner bankrupt. 2 post season appearances in franchise history since relocation. No stanely cup history period. Constantly running a deficit, based on expenses vs revenue. Not a hockey market. League run, because they cant find a suitable owner which the city will approve and who can afford to take the loss.

TO has the fan base, ownership group, profit margins, has appeared many times more in the post season and has come closer to tasting out of the stanely cup than the Coyotes since they relocated to Pheonix. I think the Leafs have had more success in the last 15 years with a marginal team than the Coyotes with a similar quality team. I dare say there might be a few NHL teams which would qualify as worst franchise in a lower ranking than the Leafs.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 09/20/2012 10:27:57

Guest8384 ( )

Posted - 09/20/2012 : 11:59:54

Slozo

I know that Revenue is tracked I wasn't aware that the total number of fans was. Can you provide a link for this statement.

It is a very interesting point brought up by Slozo and Joshua. Both used economic indicators to say best or worst.

I don't disagree that PHX is not a hockey market. However, if you flip the scripts a little, you can look at them as a team who have made the playoffs 2 years in a row (including a trip to the West Finals) with one of the lowest payrolls in the NHL, without fan or community support, and without an owner.

Take the economics out of it, that's the franchise I want to cheer for. The ultimate underdogs who should fail but succeed.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

first I'd like to say that I 100% disagree with the rankings (especially from a Leafs perspective). not to say that we belong in the top spot. but we certainly don't belong dead last either.

however.....purely based on what ESPN used to rank the teams, I can totally see why the Leafs are in the basement.Bang for your BuckFan RelationsOwnershipAffordabilityStadium ExperiencePlayersCoachingTitle Track

they specifically note in the Bang for your Buck category that it's looking only over the past 3 years. so i went under the assumption that every other category was using the same timeline.now looking at Phoenix, they rightfully so took a hit in the ownership category. but some of the others are head scratchers. 1) Stadium Experience: rank 37th. how can you even judge this when the stadium is usually pretty empty? playoff games aside, the empty seats out number the taken ones. 2) Title Track: rank 68th. this category ranks teams based on how many championships already won or expected to win in the lifetime of CURRENT FANS. what fans???

Seeing the criteria used, it's not shocking the Leafs were ranked lowest, but really, it's such a subjective article that it's ridiculous any way you look at it. I could come up with things like fan base, corporate support, liveable city, history, etc and the Leafs would be right up near the top i'm sure. A somewhat useless article really.

Pretty narrow minded view Gipper. Have you been to the stadium in Phoenix?? I have not, but I will actually be in the area watching a football game in 2 weeks. From what I hear, the Phoenix sports district, which has both the hockey and football stadiums, is the blueprint that most new sports districts are build from. The shops, the pubs, the restaurants, the entire experience is included in the stadium experience is it not??

I have been to the ACC and although it is a nice stadium, outside of the stadium is pretty weak. Public transit to and from the games is not good either.

You are looking at it from the perspective of a Toronto fan. Put yourself in the shoes of how much would you enjoy the stadium if the Leafs were not playing in the game???

As far as the fan comments, you are correct with home fans. They are the worst in the NHL. However, the are not that far behind NYI and that does not include the playoffs. That barn was packed in the playoffs last season.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Pretty narrow minded view Gipper. Have you been to the stadium in Phoenix?? I have not, but I will actually be in the area watching a football game in 2 weeks. From what I hear, the Phoenix sports district, which has both the hockey and football stadiums, is the blueprint that most new sports districts are build from. The shops, the pubs, the restaurants, the entire experience is included in the stadium experience is it not??

I have been to the ACC and although it is a nice stadium, outside of the stadium is pretty weak. Public transit to and from the games is not good either.

The problem with the Phoenix sports district is that its not actually in Phoenix. Glendale is about 10 miles away from the edge of downtown Phoenix. It was put there specifically to try and entice people to want to go to a sparsely populated area on the edge of town. Having a splashy sports complex in a remote area is, IMO, not nearly as enticing as having a stadium downtown. ACC, Molson Centre, GM Place, MSG, TD Centre - all of these are far better experiences than something like PHX or OTT, where you have to drive way out of town to get to the game.

I don't agree with your public transport assessment of ACC either - isn't it right at the foot of Union Station, the largest transport hub in Toronto?

The beauty of a downtown stadium is that you don't need to build a "sport entertainment complex" - you get all the entertainment that is already downtown for free.

Pretty narrow minded view Gipper. Have you been to the stadium in Phoenix?? I have not, but I will actually be in the area watching a football game in 2 weeks. From what I hear, the Phoenix sports district, which has both the hockey and football stadiums, is the blueprint that most new sports districts are build from. The shops, the pubs, the restaurants, the entire experience is included in the stadium experience is it not??

I have been to the ACC and although it is a nice stadium, outside of the stadium is pretty weak. Public transit to and from the games is not good either.

You are looking at it from the perspective of a Toronto fan. Put yourself in the shoes of how much would you enjoy the stadium if the Leafs were not playing in the game???

As far as the fan comments, you are correct with home fans. They are the worst in the NHL. However, the are not that far behind NYI and that does not include the playoffs. That barn was packed in the playoffs last season.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

narrow minded in the sense that i've never been to the 'Yotes arena....yes, i'll give you that. but my comment regarding stadium experience was revolving more around the fact that it's tough to gage when the stadium is, more times then not, over half empty.right now Phoenix has a good product on the ice and they've been playing winning record hockey. but it's not as exciting as it could be when you're the only person to stand up and cheer when they score a goal.

One more point i forgot to mention..... Beans you said that Gipper is narrow minded for stating the fact that you shouldn`t make a statement about an arena unless you were there.......but he really only said that how can the experience be good if its always half empty ??....which is true in my opinion......

The question that i have is, Did someone from ESPN visit every arena and stadium in North America...on this list ??? How can you rate these facilities if you never ??

The ESPN article is meaningless and harmless. It is basically an opinion piece that of course is going to insult the fans of whichever team scored lower then it fans think it should. It also is a slight insult to Canadian sports teams as a whole. I think the whole piece does show the "hockey" knowledge of its writer. No hockey team in the top 40. Clearly as most of us are hockey fans we would rate hockey teams a lot higher.

Just to add to the Pheonix Stadium area. I have been to Glendale sports area. It is very well done but along way from anything at all, you have to drive all the way around or through the city to the west side. All of the pubs and restaurant are right outside the arena and the football stadium is a two minute walk behind the arena. I was there on Saturday night to watch the Yotes play the Stars, came back the Sun afternoon for a Cards/Broncos tilt. I also caught a Suns/Trailblazers game the Friday night but that is downtown Pheonix. I have to kind of back up the Gipper a bit here. The fan experience before the Yotes game was kind of dull, you can sit at the half full pub for some pints but not much is really going outside before the game. A few venders but not much else. However, before the football game it was like a tiny city, all kinds of action, there was something for everyone. So yes it does depend on if the building is full or only 1/4 full like it was the Yotes game I went to, my experience there was kind of blah. Before the football game blew me away though.Beans if your there in two weeks, go to the Yard House or McFaddens before or after the game.

Also Beans I do have to say that if you can't get to the ACC from public transit then you have a serious issue. You can catch a GO train all the way in Hamilton and it will drop you off right at the door to the ACC. Well, your in Union station about 100 steps to the ACC, that seems like adequate public transit to me.

I never said you couldn't use public transit to the ACC, I said its bad. Well my experience was bad. It took 45 min to clear out from a Raptors game. Conversely, it takes 10-15 min to clear out from an Oilers game. I was at a San Diego Chargers game on Sunday at it took about 20 min to dump that 70,000 seat stadium.

Never said couldn't, I said it was bad.

Duke mad a good point. Who has actually been to PhoenixGlendale to see a game? I haven't but I know a number of people who have and loved it.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

If results mean anything...The Leafs rank right down there. If we Leaf fans had even half a 'clue' the building would sit close to empty.

Hopefully the NEW ownership really did buy the team for content. Winners will mean better ratings and significantly more $$$ return on the investment.

The teachers didn't give a flying firetruck.

The Blue Jays, Argos, Raptors and Leafs...not to mention that so-called soccer team are all sub 500 [in spite of the NHL's method of hiding it with a point for losing in OT/shootouts] Seems only the lacrosse team can rise above horrible. Poor Toronto. So used to losers that it just seems normal/acceptable. To suggest that the fans are wonderful is a lie. They do nothing to help the cause when they continue to support non-stop shyte.